Washington Post writer explains why she refuses to report on Gosnell case

If you tweet this post, please use the Twitter hash tag #Gosnell. Thanks!

Mollie over at Get Religion blog questioned a Washington Post reporter about why she isn’t writing about the Kermit Gosnell abortion / infanticide case.

Here’s the relevant snippet: (links removed)

Inspired by Kirsten Powers’ USA Today column yesterday, I decided to start asking journalists about their personal involvement in the Gosnell cover-up.

[…]I decided, since tmatt has me reading the Washington Post every day, to look at how the paper’s health policy reporter was covering Gosnell. I have critiqued many of her stories on the Susan G. Komen Foundation (she wrote quite a bit about that) and the Sandra Fluke controversy (she wrote quite a bit about that) and the Todd Akin controversy (you know where this is going). In fact, a site search for that reporter — who is named Sarah Kliff — and stories Akin and Fluke and Komen — yields more than 80 hits. Guess how many stories she’s done on this abortionist’s mass murder trial.

Did you guess zero? You’d be right.

So I asked her about it. Here’s her response:

Hi Molly – I cover policy for the Washington Post, not local crime, hence why I wrote about all the policy issues you mention.

Yes. She really, really, really said that. As Robert VerBruggen dryly responded:

Makes sense. Similarly, national gun-policy people do not cover local crime in places like Aurora or Newtown.

So when a private foundation privately decides to stop giving money to the country’s largest abortion provider, that is somehow a policy issue deserving of three dozen breathless hits. When a yahoo political candidate says something stupid about rape, that is a policy issue of such import that we got another three dozen hits about it from this reporter. It was so important that journalists found it fitting to ask every pro-lifer in their path to discuss it. And when someone says something mean to a birth control activist, that’s good for months of puffy profiles.

But gosh darn it, can you think of any policy implications to this, uh, “local crime” story? And that’s all it is. Just like a bunch of other local stories the Washington Postalso refuses to cover — local crimes such as the killing of Trayvon Martin and the killing of Matthew Shepard and the killing of students at an elementary school in Connecticut. Did the Washington Post even think of covering those local crime stories? No! Oh wait, they did? Like, all the time? Hmm. That’s weird. But did they cover them in terms of policy implications? Asking politicians for their views and such? Oh they did that, too? Hmm. So weird. Oh, and Sarah Kliff herself wrote one of those stories? Well, gosh, I’m so confused.

And what policies could possibly be under discussion with this Gosnell trial? Other than, you know, abortion clinic hiring practices? And enforcement of sanitary conditions? And laws on abortion practices that extend to killing live infants by beheading them? And the killing of their mothers? And state or federal oversight of clinics with records of botched abortions? And pain medication practices? And how to handle the racist practices of some clinics? And how big of a problem this is (don’t tell anyone but another clinic nearby to Gosnell was shut down this week over similar sanitation concerns)? And disposal of babies’ bodies? And discussion of whether it’s cool to snip baby’s spines after they’re born? And how often are abortion clinics inspected anyway? What are the results of inspections? When emergency rooms take in victims of botched abortions, do they report that? How did this clinic go 17 years without an inspection? Gosh, I just can’t think of a single health policy angle here. Can you?

By the way, Neil Simpson tried to do a search on MSNBC for “Kermit Gosnell” and he got no results. I did a search for “Gosnell” and got no results, too. This is why mainstream media is dying. No one believes that they can tell the truth about anything. They’re just working for the Democrat Party, not doing journalism.

Related posts

 

4 thoughts on “Washington Post writer explains why she refuses to report on Gosnell case”

  1. Reporting it would put women who have committed abortion in the past under a tremendous amount of mental anguish, guilt, and shame for eternity. The result would inflict further mental and emotional instabilities.
    Btw, lets not forget the tremendous amount of $$$$ that abortion clinics generate.

    Like

    1. Yes, how would the Democrats get their campaign contributions if abortion were regulated?

      Look:

      Gosnell, meanwhile, took in more than $1 million a year, and kept $250,000 in cash under his mattress, prosecutors have said.

      “He always led me to believe he was a poor, struggling urban physician and surgeon,” Massof said. “I thought he was hurting financially.”

      Outside the courthouse Thursday, leaders of two black, anti-abortion groups condemned Gosnell as racist for aborting so many black babies during his 30-year career. Gosnell, who is also black, performed as many as 1,000 abortions a year, many to minorities and immigrants.

      “Kermit Gosnell is a racist of the worst kind,” Day Gardner, president of the National Black Pro-Life Union, said. “He is also a butcher who preyed on the women and girls of his own race – making millions of dollars from the desperation and despair of women from his own community.”

      Source:
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/04/kermit-gosnells-abortion-_n_3017956.html

      Speaking as a non-white male, let me just say that this is worse than slavery. Worse. Than. Slavery.

      Like

    2. Better people who have made mistakes suffer regret and remorse if it means an evil person is shamed publicly into the destitution he so immensely deserves. Maybe it will shake everyone into realizing exactly what abortion is. I’m willing to hurt people’s feelings over this one.

      Like

  2. The real issue in the Gosnell case isn’t that he killed babies 30 seconds too late. Abortionists kill babies for a living, so why would anyone ever be surprised that they would bend the rules on timing, cleanliness, caring for women, etc.?

    The real issue is the political and media blackout. Deep down they know that he isn’t that unusual, so they can’t draw attention to the morally insignificant time between legal abortions and infanticide.

    And they definitely don’t people to know that President Obama and Planned Parenthood are unequivocally on record for the right of abortionists to kill babies who survive abortions.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s